IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA, Dated this the 19th day of October, 2010. Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President). Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) C.C.No. 52/09 (Filed on 04.04.2009) Between: Giby John Mathew, Kanjirakkattu Medayil, Adoor.P.O., Pathanamthitta. (By Adv. Thomas. G. Maruthathu) ..... Complainant. And: 1. Manager, XI/1949-2, Ramachandra Towers, Plamoodu, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. Manager, Redington India (P) Ltd., T.C-15/1895(2), 1st Floor, Mahesh Estate, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram. 3. The Branch Manager, QRS Retail Ltd., XXI/227, Alummoottil Plaza, T.K. Road, Near Collectorate, Pathanamthitta. Addl.4. The Customer Satisfaction Manager, Motorola (I) Pvt. Ltd., 415/02, Nehroli Gurgaon Road, Sector 14, Gurgaon 122 001, Haryana. ..... Opposite parties. O R D E R Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member): Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The facts of the complaint is as follows: The complainant had purchased a Motorola V8 2GB (IME 1357335010582897) mobile phone from the 1st opposite party on 7.4.08 for ` 13,800. For the above said mobile one-year product warranty was provided by the 1st opposite party. To the utter sorrow and grief of the complainant, the complainant came to know that the mobile phone camera and Music system of the said phone was not at all performing. Then the complainant contracted the customer care Motorola and they directed to approach 2nd opposite party for getting the phone repaired. But they could not repair the phone. And after two months they returned the phone without any explanation. The complainant again contacted the customer care by E-Mail then they replied that the complaint has been forwarded to the service department and they will contact the complainant within 48 hours. But they never contracted the complainant. The complainant cannot use the mobile since the phone display is not working and the entire mobile phone system is out of order. The complainant had spent an amount of ` 13,800 for purchasing the phone. After spending this much amount he could not use the phone. The non-functioning of the mobile phone is a manufacturing defect and the non-getting of the mobile phone repaired is due to irresponsible attitude of the opposite parties, which amounts to a deficiency in service hence the complainant is entitled to replace the mobile phone model V8-2GB with a new mobile phone with same model along with compensation. Therefore, the complainant filed this complaint for getting an order for directing the opposite parties to provide a brand new Motorola Mobile phone with Model V-8 2GB or return the price of the mobile with interest along with compensation and cost. The complainant prays for granting the relief. 3. The opposite parties 1 and 3 filed a common version and the others set exparte. The opposite parties 1 and 3 have raised the contentions, as they have not provided any warranty for the complainant’s mobile. They have admitted the purchase of the mobile by the complainant for an amount of ` 13,800. The complainant has not contacted these opposite parties or not complained about the defect of the said mobile. These opposite parties are only retail dealers who have no liability to replace or repair the items sold. The conditions of warranty for products sold by these opposite parties are limited by agreement i.e. the invoice and are restricted with respect to the manufacturers alone. The complainant who had received the said retail invoice cannot seek any relief against these opposite parties. The service/repairs/replacement of defective products are done by authorized service centre or the company. The complainant has purchased this phone from 1st opposite party, which is situated out of the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief from these opposite parties. Hence these opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost of them. 4. The 2nd and 4th opposite parties have not appeared or filed any version. Hence they set exparte. 5. On the above pleadings, the following points are raised for consideration: (1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for in the complaint? (3) Reliefs and Costs? 6. The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit and Ext.A1 to A3 series filed by the complainant. For the opposite parties, there is no oral or documentary evidence. After closure of the evidence, both sides were heard. 7. Point Nos.1 to 3:- As per Sec.11(2)(b) of the C.P.Act, the opposite parties branch office carries on business within the jurisdiction of this Forum while filing the complaint. Hence this complaint is maintainable before the Forum and the Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. 8. The complainant’s case is that he had purchased a Motorola mobile phone from 1st opposite party for an amount of ` 13,800. The camera and music system of the phone was not working properly. The complainant informed the matter to the customer care and they directed to given the phone to the 2nd opposite party for repairing. As such the complainant entrusted the phone to 2nd opposite party but they did not repair it and it was returned after two months. The non-getting of the mobile phone as repaired from the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get replaced or get the price of mobile. Hence he filed this complaint for getting the relieves as sought for in the complaint. 9. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant has filed a proof affidavit and Ext.A1 and A3 series. Ext.A1 is the purchase bill dated 7.4.08 issued by the 1st opposite party. Ext.A2 is the product warranty issued by the Motorola Company. Ext.A3 is the receipt-dated 27.2.2010 issued by Professional Couriers for sending the notice to 4th opposite party. Ext.A3(a) is the Daily delivery cum sheet dated 3.3.2010 from Professional Couriers. 10. There is no oral or documentary evidence from the part of opposite parties. 11. On going through the evidences in this case, Ext.A1 shows that the complainant had purchased a Motorola Mobile Phone Model No.V8-2GB from the 1st opposite party on 7.4.08. Ext.A2 issued by the Motorola India Pvt. Ltd. shows that they have offered one-year product warranty to the mobile phone. The complainant’s allegation is that after purchasing the phone within two months the camera and music system of the phone was not working. Then he informed the matter to the customer care Motorola they directed him to approach 2nd opposite party for repairing the phone. The complainant given the phone to 2nd opposite party. But after two months the 2nd opposite party returned the phone without repairing. After that he again complained to the customer care but they did not responded. Now the entire mobile system is not working. 12. According to the 1st and 3rd opposite parties, they have admitted the purchase of mobile by the complainant. They contended that these opposite parties are only retail dealers and they have no liability to replace or repair the phone. The warranty was given by the manufacturer and the service/repairs and replacement of defective products are done by the authorized service centre. As per the direction of the customer care centre the complainant entrusted the phone to the 2nd opposite party, the authorized service centre of 4th opposite party for curing the defects of the phone. But the phone was not repaired and it was returned to the complainant after two months. After that he again complained to the 4th opposite party but they did not responded. The complainant had spend an amount of ` 13,800 for purchasing the mobile phone. But he could not use the phone to his expectations. After spending this much of amount the non-functioning of the mobile phone would cause mental agony and sufferings to the complainant. After accepting the price of phone by 1st opposite party and after issuing warranty for the said phone by 4th opposite party, these opposite parties evaded from their liability. These opposite parties have the legal duty to repair or replace the phone within the warranty period. The irresponsible attitude of the opposite parties amounts to a deficiency in service and they are liable to compensate for the same. In the circumstances, we find that there is a clear deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties. As the manufacturer of the mobile, the 4th opposite party is liable to replace the phone. As the authorised service centre of the 4th opposite party, 2nd opposite party is liable to repair the phone. As the seller of the mobile phone, the 1st and 3rd opposite parties are liable to take initiative to redress the grievances of the buyer. Hence the complainant is entitled to replace the same Model Motorola mobile phone instead of the defective one or entitled to get the price of mobile from the opposite parties along with compensation and cost. Hence the complaint can be allowed as prayed for. 13. In the result, the complaint is allowed as follows: (1) The complainant is directed to produce the defective mobile phone purchased from the 1st opposite party before the 3rd opposite party within one week from the date of receipt of this order. (2) The 3rd opposite party is directed to replace a new Motorola V8-2GB mobile phone instead of the defective phone to the complainant and on replacement by the 3rd opposite party, the 1st and 4th opposite parties are directed to do the needful for compensating the 3rd opposite party. (3) The 1st and 4th opposite party is also directed to pay compensation of ` 2,000 (Rupees Two Thousand Only) along with cost of ` 1,000 (Rupees One Thousand only) to the complainant. (4) In case of non-compliance of this order by opposite parties, the complainant is allowed to realise the purchase price of mobile phone, ` 13,800 (Rupees Thirteen Thousand and eight hundred only) from the 1st and 4th opposite parties with 10% interest along with compensation and cost as ordered from the date of this order. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 19th day of October 2010. (Sd/-) C. Lathika Bhai, (Member) Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-) Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-) Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : Purchase bill dated 7.4.08 issued by the 1st opposite party. A2 : Product Warranty issued by the Motorola Company. A3 : Receipt-dated 27.2.2010 issued by Professional Couriers for sending the notice to 4th opposite party. A3(a) : Daily delivery cum sheet dated 3.3.2010 from Professional Couriers. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil. (By Order) Senior Superintendent. Copy to:- (1) Giby John Mathew, Kanjirakkattu Medayil, Adoor.P.O., Pathanamthitta. (2) Manager, XI/1949-2, Ramachandra Towers, Plamoodu, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. (3) Manager, Redington India (P) Ltd., T.C-15/1895(2), 1st Floor, Mahesh Estate, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram. (4) The Branch Manager, QRS Retail Ltd., XXI/227, Alummoottil Plaza, T.K. Road, Near Collectorate, Pathanamthitta. (5) The Customer Satisfaction Manager, Motorola (I) Pvt. Ltd., 415/02, Nehroli Gurgaon Road, Sector 14, Gurgaon 122 001, Haryana. (6) The Stock File.
| | HONORABLE LathikaBhai, Member | HONORABLE Jacob Stephen, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE N.PremKumar, Member | | 
